THE ROLE OF VALUE CREATION IN SUSTAINABLE 
PRODUCT SERVICE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION: A CASE 
STUDY ON LYNK & CO’S SUBSCRIPTION MODEL 
 
 
Bachelor Thesis in Corporate Sustainability 
School of Business, Economics and Law – University of Gothenburg 
Spring Semester 2023 
 
Authors: 
Carl Provén 
Noel Skoglund 
 
Supervisor: 
Konstantina Katsela 
Abstract 
This study contributes to the research field of strategic management by increasing the 
understanding of how value creation motives impact sustainable outcomes of PSS in the 
automotive industry, through a case study of Lynk & Co’s Product Strategy Team and their 
subscription model. The study has been conducted with a grounded theory approach, focusing 
on the exploratory nature of inductive reasoning. The data was collected from semi-structured 
interviews with four strategy managers and moreover Lynk & Co’s sustainability report from 
2022. Thereafter, the analysis was made iteratively, based on grounded theory coding, which 
enabled the construction of a core category that manifests the essential finding of the study. The 
Product Strategy Team’s dual motives of creating a financially sustainable business model 
simultaneously with external stakeholder value is found to have implications for the sustainable 
outcomes of Lynk & Co’s PSS model. The strategy managers’ perception of a causal 
relationship between financial performance and environmental protection illustrates that the 
value creation motives are hierarchal. Strategy managers are therefore interpreted to prioritise 
certain values, which can be concluded to impose risks on the company’s means and ends – the 
expressed value creation motives and the outcomes of their business model.  
 
Keywords  
Product-Service Systems, PSS, Value Creation, Servitization, Strategic Management 
 
Acknowledgements 
First and foremost, we would like to thank all four respondents for participating in our study, 
and not least for the enthusiasm they showed. The knowledge and input you shared made up 
for very interesting interviews. We would also like to thank our supervisor, Konstantina 
Katsela, your guidance has been of utmost importance in writing this study. 
 
Thank You! 
 
Noel Skoglund & Carl Provén 
 
 
 
 
 1 
Table of Contents 
 
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 3 
1.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 3 
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4 
1.3 PURPOSE AND RESEARCH QUESTION ................................................................................................ 7 
1.4 RESEARCH FOCUS AND DEMARCATIONS ............................................................................................ 7 
2. FRAME OF REFERENCE ................................................................................................................... 9 
2.1 SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPTS .............................................................................................................. 9 
2.1.1 Triple-Bottom-Line .................................................................................................................. 9 
2.1.2 Circular Economy in the Automotive Industry ...................................................................... 10 
2.1.3 Sharing Economy in the Automotive Industry ...................................................................... 11 
2.2 VALUE CREATION ........................................................................................................................... 12 
2.2.1 Value Creation in Stakeholder Theory ................................................................................. 13 
2.3 SERVITIZATION ............................................................................................................................... 14 
2.3.1 Business Models and PSS ................................................................................................... 14 
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 16 
3.1 RESEARCH APPROACH ................................................................................................................... 16 
3.2 PURPOSIVE SAMPLING MOTIVES ..................................................................................................... 17 
3.3 DATA COLLECTION ......................................................................................................................... 18 
3.3.1 Primary Data ......................................................................................................................... 18 
3.3.2 Secondary Data .................................................................................................................... 19 
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................. 19 
3.4.1 Coding .................................................................................................................................. 20 
3.5 QUALITY......................................................................................................................................... 20 
4. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 22 
4.1 CORE VALUES AND SUSTAINABILITY REPORT ................................................................................... 22 
4.2 SUBSCRIPTION MODEL MOTIVES ..................................................................................................... 23 
4.3 VALUE CREATION MOTIVES ............................................................................................................. 24 
4.4 SUBSCRIPTION MODEL OUTCOMES ................................................................................................. 25 
5. ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................................... 28 
5.1 IDENTIFICATION OF MOTIVES ........................................................................................................... 28 
5.2 COMPARISON OF MOTIVES AND OUTCOMES ..................................................................................... 30 
6. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 33 
7. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 35 
7.1 CONCLUDING REMARKS .................................................................................................................. 35 
7.2 FUTURE RESEARCH ........................................................................................................................ 35 
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 37 
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE ....................................................................................................... 46 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
1. Introduction 
 
The following chapter describes the transport sectors’ role in climate change, from the global 
perspective of economic activity trends and population growth effects. Further, the segment 
contextualizes the current state and outlook of automotive industry transformation, to 
subsequently conduct a problem statement. Thereafter, the purpose, research question, 
research focus and demarcations follow.   
 
1.1 Background 
 
The rapidly growing global transport demand, strongly correlated to population growth, gross 
domestic product (GDP) and international trade, is predicted to be the main source of forecasted 
worldwide transport CO2 emission rates in coming decades. Transport-related greenhouse gas 
(GHG) emissions account for a critical part of global GHG growth, and the activity trends of 
the twenty-first century indicate that emission increases are expected to prevail (IPCC, 2022; 
EEA 2022). GHG growth creates environmental challenges through climate impact (e.g., 
flooding and drought, rising sea levels and extremely high temperatures) and interconnected 
social and economic issues. Further, climate change imposes various risks of damaging 
transport infrastructures and systemic structures of mobility and freight (Moretti and 
Loprencipe, 2018). One of the most prominent challenges relates to the fast-paced economic 
growth in developing countries, and further connects to e.g., population growth and expanding 
international trade (ITF, 2019). Rises in population implies more passengers and therefore 
increased mobility needs. Such could take place through demographic changes (e.g., population 
expands in urban areas) and new production and consumption patterns when purchasing power 
accelerates. Populations are becoming increasingly urbanised, and interconnected trends of 
socioeconomical development and sub-urban expansion are linked to boosts in specific 
transport demands such as private vehicle ownership (ITF, 2019).  
 
The increased awareness of aforementioned relationship between unsustainable transport 
systems and negative externalities has created massive commitment among national 
governments and international organisations to mitigate GHG emissions. For instance, the 
Chinese government has committed to decarbonising transport and aim to peak their emissions 
in 2030 (Tang et al., 2019). Further, the UN has created the legally binding agreement on 
climate change, the Paris Agreement, which has been adopted by 196 parties. It aims “to limit 
the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels” (UNFCCC, 2022). Pledged goals 
 3 
of ‘net zero emissions’ and ‘limit global warming’ creates massive challenges for the transport 
sector to attain a sustainable development pathway that satisfies the present and future needs of 
mobility in a sustainable context (Tang et al., 2019).  
 
1.2 Problem Statement 
 
On-road passenger vehicles account for a vast part of transport-related CO2 emissions. But the 
technological development in recent years has made evidence for possibilities of reducing on-
road vehicle emissions, especially in urban areas (EEA, 2022; IPCC, 2022). The transformation 
derives from innovative electrification and efficiency solutions in engine and fuel 
technology, e.g., the breakthrough of electromobility. However, lifecycle assessments (LCA) 
of battery electric vehicles (BEV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) and internal 
combustion engine vehicles (ICEV) show that lifecycle GHG emission analyses of the different 
vehicle powertrains are complex. Generally, BEVs have higher manufacturing emissions than 
ICEVs, mainly because of the energy consumptive manufacturing of battery packs. On the other 
hand, BEVs have the potential to compensate with mitigation effects in the use-phase. However, 
such effects depend on the energy mix used to charge the vehicle, e.g., renewable energy or 
carbon-intensive energy. Similar dependencies occur through analysis of production emissions. 
Low-carbon electricity has further implications when used as an energy source in the 
manufacturing-phase, and accounts for a great share of possible lifecycle mitigation (IPCC, 
2022). Nevertheless, present renewable energy barriers in the electricity networks of BEVs and 
PHEVs create further challenges in the development towards sustainable transport solutions 
(Wolfram and Wiedmann, 2017). 
 
While technological development of on-road passenger vehicles is shown to be of crucial 
importance in developing a sustainable pathway for mobility, researchers have identified a need 
for more profound systemic changes in order to meet related sustainability goals and 
agreements (IPCC, 2022; Naimoli and Wilcox, 2023). This includes development of urban 
designs that promote safe and modern transportation modes and a behavioural focus that 
emphasizes the effects of customer value and environmental value on travel demand (Noppers 
et al., 2016). The production side has created both financial and environmental benefits from 
dematerialization strategies, i.e., reduction in quantity of materials used for a unit of economic 
output. But such technological innovations tend to increase transport demand, thus potentially 
creating a net zero emission reduction (Kasulaitis et al., 2018). Instead, reduced transport 
 4 
demand and increased efficiency in car use, through e.g., circular and shared economy, creates 
arguments for new opportunities that can accelerate emission mitigation. There is evidence that 
developed cities can decouple economic growth from car use and further meet the demands and 
needs of urbanism independent of cars (Newman, 2017). Such findings support the following 
statement of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): 
 
“There is a growing need for systemic infrastructure changes that enable 
behavioural modifications and reductions in demand for transport services that 
can in turn reduce energy demand. /…/ There are growing opportunities to 
implement strategies that drive behavioural change and support the adoption of 
new transport technology options.” 
 
(IPCC, 2022, p. 98) 
 
The automotive industry has – simultaneously with aforementioned stakeholder pressure on 
sustainable development – entered a servitization journey. This means that core offers of 
automotive brands are perpetually becoming more service- and use-oriented, implying 
intensified customer relations and collaborative complexity because of more advanced 
aftersales provisions (Genzlinger et al., 2020; Mahut et al., 2016). The strategical change 
initially derived from economic incentives to complement scarce product margins with bundled 
high-margin services (Genzlinger et al., 2020; Gaiardelli et al., 2014) and moreover maintain 
compliance with environmental regulations (Opazo-Basáez et al., 2018). Creating customer 
value in the manufacturing industry has developed to become more diverse through 
servitization. But the focus is still mainly customer-oriented and much of the value is interpreted 
to be captured operationally, through a traditional provider to customer value chain (Coreynen 
et al., 2017). Mutual provider and customer values, predominantly discussed in economic terms, 
is highlighted in the literature as the most crucial part of service-oriented car offers (Coreynen 
et al., 2017; Lindström et al., 2015). From that perspective, much of the business models that 
originate from the servitization trend have historically been founded merely upon financial 
advantages. While business strategies of automotive brands have seen a paradigm shift towards 
customer interaction and identification of diverse customer needs, the value created from such 
strategies does not necessarily balance the triple-bottom-line (TBL) components of economic, 
environmental and social value (de Jesus Pacheco et al., 2022). 
 
 5 
Product-Service System (PSS) is a business model that has been widely adopted among 
automotive brands and further manifests how the servitization has shaped the automotive 
industry (Mahut et al., 2016). The model can be defined as “an integrated bundle of products 
and services which aims at creating customer utility and generating value” (Boehm and 
Thomas, 2013). In September 2020, the Zhejiang Geely Holding Group owned automotive 
brand Lynk & Co was launched in Europe, with the ambition to create a service-oriented and 
sustainable mobility offer through their business model. The Lynk & Co subscription model is 
in this study theorized as a PSS model – the offer is in line with Boehm and Thomas’ (2013) 
definition of a PSS – and can be described as an integrated bundle of a PHEV and various core 
services, that further creates customer utility. The company provides the customer with a PHEV 
from their car fleet bundled with several services, e.g., maintenance, roadside assistance, and 
tire change. Besides, the offer also includes the possibility of ‘car sharing’ for lenders, i.e., 
owners, leasers and subscribers can share their PHEV with free members of the Lynk & Co 
community. The business model of the subscription offer is based on a car fleet, i.e., the 
business owns the PHEVs and offers the customers a month-to-month subscription. The 
mileage limit is 1250 km per month and apart from included services, the PHEV is standardised 
with various technological premium functions.  
 
Whereas PSS possesses attributes linked to the concept of sustainable business models 
(Goedkoop et al. 1999; Wang et al. 2011; Ceschin, 2013; Mahut et al., 2016), transformative 
value chain changes are required for the PSS model to be adopted in a sustainable manner 
(Martinez et al., 2010; de Jesus Pachecho et al., 2022). The dissertation literature on PSS 
suggests that the sustainable outcomes of PSS adoption have been taken for granted and TBL 
benefits are in many cases non-evident. Thus, a research gap has been found on the relationship 
between sustainability and PSS (Barquet et al., 2016; Tseng et al., 2019; Roman et al., 2023). 
Thereafter, Sustainable PSS (SPSS) and Strongly Sustainable PSS (SSPSS) have emerged as 
theories and definitions for how a PSS business model can improve and value coordinate to 
become more sustainable. Nevertheless, the implementation of PSS requires understanding of 
case specific sustainability benefits and rebound effects of the business model design – created 
by the related strategy managers’ strategic motives (Barquet et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2021; 
Roman et al., 2023).  
 
 6 
Therefore, the following study is based on the characteristics of Lynk & Co’s subscription 
model, put into the context of previous research on servitization and PSS from a strategic 
management perspective.   
 
1.3 Purpose and Research Question 
 
The purpose of this study is to increase the understanding of how strategy managers’ value 
creation motives impact sustainable outcomes of PSS models in the automotive industry. 
Therefore, the study aims to answer the following research question: 
 
How do value creation motives impact sustainable outcomes of Product Service System models 
in the automotive industry? 
 
1.4 Research Focus and Demarcations 
 
The study will focus on one specific case of an implemented PSS model and investigate how 
the related strategic management links to the model’s characteristics, from a sustainability 
perspective. Therefore, it is important to note that although Lynk & Co has various offers 
including Business-to-Business (B2B) leasing and different buy options, this study focuses on 
the product and service-bundled Business-to-Customer (B2C) subscription model. The 
empiricism of this study will contribute to the understanding of how strategic decision-making 
is affected by strategy managers’ value creation motives. But the business context, and 
resources and capabilities of Lynk & Co must be considered as highly influential, causal drivers 
of the research, i.e., thoroughly considered when drawing generic conclusions of the study.  
 
A PSS can be interpreted as a representation of what values the business model delivers as a 
consequence of strategic decision-making (Barquet et al., 2015). The business model of Lynk 
& Co’s subscription model is a construct in process, highly impacted by their Product Strategy 
Teams’ decision-making. Such is exposed to both external and internal stakeholder pressure 
and this should be considered throughout the study. The strategic decisions that define the 
business model are influenced by external context, organizational context, the characteristics of 
the decision itself and lastly the individual and collective implications of the decision makers 
– in this case Lynk & Co’s strategic managers (Elbanna et al., 2020). The study assumes that 
one of the business models most important functions is to create value. Further, the business 
model functions are assumed to co-evolve with aforementioned factors that influence strategic 
 7 
decisions (Costa Climent and M. Haftor, 2020). Therefore, value creation will be perceived as 
a theme that can demonstrate the direction of a business model’s sustainable development. 
Moreover, this study makes a distinction between the terms “value creation” and “value 
capturing”, which are elaborated on in Frame of Reference (p. 9-10). The concept of value 
creation constitutes the scope of this research study but eventual interconnectedness with value 
capturing relevant for analysis is considered. 
 
Lastly, the objects of primary data, i.e., the four interviewed strategy managers of Lynk & Co, 
will be interpreted to represent the company’s strategic management and value creation 
motives. Further, all strategy managers represent the same department of Lynk & Co – the 
Product Strategy Team. Therefore, empirical findings might be referred to as the Product 
Strategy Team’s or Lynk & Co’s value creation motives, specifically when a majority of the 
interview answers are congruent.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
2. Frame of Reference 
 
This chapter consists of the theoretical standpoint of which the study is based on. The existing 
literature on the topics and relevant theories are presented. The Frame of Reference will later 
contribute to the analysis of data and fill the purpose of referring to prior theories when 
conducting new ones.  
 
2.1 Sustainability Concepts 
 
The concept of sustainability is concluded to be multidimensional and thus creates numerous 
separate challenges in the scope of making corporations’ sustainable development fully 
integrated in strategies and business models (Giovannoni and Fabietti, 2013). The following 
sustainability concepts are enlightened through a funnel down structure. Firstly, TBL defines 
the interconnected dimensions of sustainability and is often referred to when defining 
sustainability (Iung and Levrat, 2014). Thereafter relevant models and concepts for the 
automotive industry are introduced.  
 
2.1.1 Triple-Bottom-Line 
 
In 1994, Elkington introduced the sustainability reporting framework Triple Bottom Line 
(TBL), arguing that a business' performance and progress must be measured against economic, 
environmental, and social indicators to become sustainable (Elkington, 1998). The construct 
implies that the traditional financial single bottom line, which emphasizes a shareholder 
perspective, is not compatible with the emerging environmental and social challenges that are 
slowly reaching a threshold. Instead, new metrics are to be integrated where economic growth, 
environmental protection, and social justice should all be considered interconnected 
components of sustainability performance. TBL is conceptualized around a three-pillar 
framework, illustrated in Fig. 2.1, and has challenged the traditional economic bottom line 
perspective. Much of the related contemporary sustainability research has emerged from or 
contributed to the 1987 Brundtland Report, issued by the United Nations World Commission 
on Environment and Development, which created a new paradigm of corporate sustainability 
embodying economic growth as a solution to environmental and social issues. This 
development in corporate sustainability converges with the construct of the TBL approach. 
(Purvis et al., 2019).  
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
Fig. 2.1, triple-bottom line presented through three different illustrations (Purvis et al., 2019) 
 
But the TBL model has also received critique for approaching economic performance with 
measurements for financial, rather than broader economic values. Further, it has also been 
questioned whether TBL functions as an effective tool in harmonizing broad social 
management. The literature on TBL suggests that such a measurement-oriented framework has 
restrictions when implementing it systematically into the reporting practice of a company 
(Sridhar, 2011; Mitchell et al., 2007; Yip et al., 2023). The nature of predominantly social 
justice issues makes such dimension of TBL difficult to measure. Therefore, important social 
indicators tend to be excluded. Yip et al. (2023) present similar trends in sustainable 
manufacturing, where TBL is often concluded to be imbalanced. The interdependencies of 
economic and environmental sustainability are not reflected in the research on social 
sustainability, implying that the social dimension of sustainable manufacturing is separated and 
independent. Direction for social sustainability management is needed to balance the pillars of 
TBL, through e.g., United Nations’ SDGs (Sridhar, 2011; Yip et al., 2023).  
 
2.1.2 Circular Economy in the Automotive Industry 
 
The linear production and consumption imperatives of value chains have in recent decades been 
irrupted by new and more sustainable product strategies through circular economy (CE). The 
concept of CE is focused to utilize and restrict both upstream and downstream resource use 
through value-oriented transformation of products and services (Awan et al., 2020). More 
 10 
specifically, CE aims to add value to products by prolonging the life cycle and increasing the 
utilization of resources. The model addresses a wide range of value chain segments such as 
extraction, production, and consumption through e.g., parts and product remanufacturing as 
well as service providers that enable ‘use focus’ rather than ‘consumption focus’ (MacArthur, 
2013). In comparison to linear production models, MacArthur (2013) argues that CE amplifies 
and drives value creation, thus creating arbitrage opportunities. Firstly, through tighter circles, 
i.e., preserving value downstream, towards the end of the value chain. Such improvements 
create cost savings of material, energy, capital etc, and moreover reduces environmental 
externalities. Further, longer circulation periods add value by reducing material inflows and 
thereby its risk of dissipating. But the extent of economic value creation differs depending on 
e.g., circular model, products, segment of supply chain and more (MacArthur, 2013).  
 
CE is addressed as an applicable model for automotive businesses and contributes to the 
transition into environmental sustainability by balancing and linking the TBL components of 
environmental and economic systems. Particularly because of the remanufacturing and 
recycling possibilities within manufacturing companies (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Maldonado-
Guzmán et al., 2020). The scientific literature on CE puts emphasis on non-technological and 
technological eco-innovation as a primary strategy. Such derive from e.g., interdisciplinary 
science on industrial ecology (Iung and Levrat, 2014) and enable new dynamic capabilities and 
resources in the process of differentiating through eco-products and eco-services (Ghisellini et 
al., 2016).  
 
2.1.3 Sharing Economy in the Automotive Industry 
 
Sharing economy (SE) can be interpreted as a phenomenon that emphasizes utilization of 
underused resources and has moreover developed to become a business opportunity for 
predominantly accommodation and transportation companies (Hossain, 2020). SE is 
approached from various perspectives, and can be concluded to affect consumer behaviour, 
mobility, business models, sustainability et cetera. Commonly, the concept relates to e.g., 
values of collaborative economy and is therefore understood to connect with shared value 
creation (Hossain, 2020). Benefits of SE relates to peer-to-peer (P2P) interaction that enables 
on-demand access rather than ownership transactions and has therefore contributed to the 
development of service-oriented product offers (Cohen and Kietzmann, 2014; Nansubuga and 
Kowalkowski, 2021). Further, the concept provides customers with e.g., economically 
 11 
beneficial mobility solutions and has financial implications for the related service and platform 
providers. For instance, SE creates new sources of revenue and reduces costs through 
minimized transaction costs and cost of ownership, especially for customers (Barnes and 
Mattsson, 2016).  
 
Carsharing is a business model concept that has emerged as a consequence of SE and further 
demonstrates how servitization has impacted the automotive industry (Nansubuga and 
Kowalkowski, 2021). Business models based on carsharing can take on different strategic 
approaches through B2C carsharing, P2P carsharing et cetera. This implies various outcomes 
of e.g., price mechanisms, resource use and value creation, depending on the carsharing model 
characteristics (Teece, 2010). Nevertheless, the dissertation literature suggests that there are 
some general drivers and barriers for implementation of carsharing (Münzel et al., 2019; Fleury 
et al., 2017; Valor, 2020). Firstly, carsharing creates environmental benefits through reduction 
of GHG emissions and thus incentives for customers to deprioritize car ownership. However, 
this motive is not the sole driver and rather secondary to effort expectancy, i.e., carsharing is 
highly impacted by the practicability of the service – customers demand e.g., accessibility, 
profitability, quality service from the platform providers (Fleury et al., 2017). Moreover, 
carsharing is driven by financial opportunities for the providing business and contributes to 
utilization of underused products (Nansubuga and Kowalkowski, 2021).  
 
2.2 Value Creation 
 
The term “value” and the concept of “value creation” are central themes for strategic 
management and illustrates the fundamental idea of managing a business through internal 
stakeholder relationships (Nalebuff and Brandenburger, 1997; Bowman and Ambrosini, 2010). 
But the topic is by its nature much more wide-ranging – the purpose of value creation, i.e., what 
value is ought to be created and for who, determines the approach to business practices (Corte 
and Del Gaudio, 2014; Vargo et al., 2008).  This segment elaborates on the diverse streams of 
research in which value creation has been discussed and analysed. The discourse on the topic 
makes a distinction between agency theory on the one hand, and stakeholder theory on the other 
(Windsor, 2017). Further, this literature review indicates that research on “value creation” tends 
to intersect with research on “value capturing”. While value creation focuses on the collectively 
created value for e.g., customers, the firm as a whole or society, value capturing takes the 
 12 
perspective of inbound appropriation of the value created, rendered in the competitiveness 
through e.g., profitability (Nalebuff and Brandenburger, 1997; Priem, 2007).  
 
Value creation can in market economy be referred to as “the core purpose and central process 
of economic exchange” (Vargo et al., 2008). A firm’s operations create value for customers 
through products and services, and shareholders invest in the firm in exchange for higher value 
returns (Windsor, 2017). Customers and shareholders are assumed to be the primary 
stakeholders of concern in agency theory, and the traditional value creation literature suggests 
that the motive of creating value is singular and straight-forward in the sense that it aims 
towards increasing shareholders financial worth in public corporations (Windsor, 2017). 
Producer surplus is the key source of creating such value and is inherent in consumer perception 
of monetary exchange for use-value (McWilliams and Siegel, 2010).   
 
2.2.1 Value Creation in Stakeholder Theory 
 
The multistakeholder perspective of value creation was originated by Freeman (1984) and 
constructs a counteracting theory to the traditional firm approach of creating value for principals 
(shareholders) through agents (managers) (Freeman et al., 2010). The stakeholder approach has 
developed to become an important driver for broader strategic management – shifting value 
creation motives from shareholders to stakeholders. Further, stakeholder theory addresses the 
managerial opportunities to impact the value that an organization or investment opts to create, 
and such is based on the managers ability to identify stakeholders and their potential (McVea 
and Freeman, 2005). The theory is in literature problematized because of the complexity that 
occurs when multiple stakeholders’ contradictory demands and needs are to be satisfied 
simultaneously. Therefore, Dohnalová and Zimola (2014) argues that strategic management 
tends to manoeuvre such contradictories hierarchically, i.e., prioritise certain stakeholders’ 
demands and needs. The relationship between stakeholders and extent of hierarchal 
diversification is concluded to be a main challenge for strategic decision-making (Dohnalová 
and Zimola, 2014). Moreover, the fundament of stakeholder theory derives from the idea that 
stakeholder focus also implies stakeholder power, i.e., decision-making should be managed by 
stakeholders (Stieb, 2008). Thus, further illustrating the complexity of value creation motives. 
 
 
 13 
2.3 Servitization 
 
The process of integrating products and services in the core offer of a company take different 
names and forms. But all with the purpose of changing the value proposition from being purely 
ownership of a product to more being the value of use (Johnstone, et al. 2009). In the following 
section the focus will be on two of these concepts, servitization and PSS. 
 
The process of servitization was first described as a tool used by businesses to integrate more 
services into their core offerings, in order to increase competitive edge towards customers 
(Vandermerwe & Rada 1988). Servitization can further be described as the transformation in 
which the company changes its business model and logic from being product-centric to service-
centric (Kowalkowski, et.al, 2017). A company’s servitization process can be said to develop 
through different stages, moving from purely offering goods or services, to combining goods 
and services as the offering, and later to include several goods and services as a bundle. Creating 
an offering that is more of a package meaning to meet increased customer demands, blurring 
the previous divide between products and services (Vandermerwe & Rada, 1988). However, 
the outcomes of implementing servitization seem to have varying results, due to the complex 
nature of the process, requiring organizational capabilities and taking responsibility (Kohtamäki 
et al., 2021). The concept has developed over recent years under the name of digital 
servitization, focusing even more on the role of digitalization in enabling successful 
servitization and value creation, in which software systems play a major role in supplementing 
the bundle of services and products (Kohtamäki et al., 2019).  
 
2.3.1 Business Models and PSS 
 
Business models (BM) describe the way in which a firm create and deliver value to customers 
through its organizational design, according to Teece (2010). Further the business model 
articulates the evidence and logic for how a business provides value for the customer and creates 
profit for the firm. In combination with strategy analysis, formulating the BM is used for a firm 
to create and protect competitive advantage in a market of customer choice and competition. 
Baden-Fuller & Morgan (2010) furthermore describe BM as a recipe for creative managers, in 
that the models demonstrate how to achieve a certain result, but with possibilities for modifying 
through innovation.  
 
 14 
Perceiving servitization as the process of including services in the product offering, another 
concept would be productization of services, in which what was traditionally a pure service 
include products. As these two concepts merge and develop, the PSS concept appears, Fig 2.2, 
where the offering is a product and service that jointly deliver functionality (Baines et al., 2007).  
 
 
 
Figure 2.2, Interconnectedness of Servitization and PSS 
 
Goedkoop et al. (1999) describe product service systems (PSS) as “a marketable set of products 
and services, jointly capable of fulfilling a client’s need”. At different levels combining both 
one or more tangible products and services can fulfil needs and create value. PSS can therefore 
create several opportunities for sustainable economic growth in organizations. The 
implementation of PSS may have different drivers such as strategic business, legislative or 
ecological reasons. Mont (2002) further resonates that PSS can be defined as a system of 
products, services and supporting infrastructure and networks that as a business model aims to 
improve the ability to satisfy customer needs, be competitive and lower environmental impact 
all at the same time. This would mean a shift for consumers from buying products to buying 
services and system solutions, which require higher involvement but also have the potential to 
minimize environmental impact. While for the companies providing the service it would create 
more responsibility for the full life cycle. 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
3. Methodology 
 
This chapter describes the methodology used when conducting the research study. The process 
of collecting and analysing data is presented. Lastly, the chapter contributes with a discussion 
about the limitations, reliability, and validity of the research. 
 
3.1 Research Approach  
 
This study has been approached with a qualitative research method in the process of collecting 
and analysing data. The nature of qualitative studies has been found suitable when observing 
and understanding the outcomes of strategy managers’ value creation motives. Further, the lack 
of research on sustainable outcomes of PSS, as pointed out by Ceschin (2013) created argument 
for an exploratory study, in accordance with Patel & Davidson (2019). Thus, the research has 
been approached with exploratory inductive reasoning. The aim was to gather data and 
observations and subsequently structure the general outlines derived from the specific case. 
Moreover, this inductive approach is specified with grounded theory, developed by Glaser & 
Strauss (1967), which has the possibility of defying the grand theory paradigms of strategic 
management in the automotive industry. The research question was formulated neutrally, 
without hypothesis or assumptions about empirical findings. Data has been gathered and 
analysed iteratively to form a saturated theoretical conclusion based on the empiricism. 
Therefore, qualitative interviews with related managers were set to construct the basis of this 
study. The use of a case study is concluded to be highly relevant when analysing processes and 
change (Patel & Davidson, 2019).  
 
The following figure (3.1) illustrates the process of the research and its design. The most 
important framework stages are elaborated on in chapter level 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 and it should be 
noted that although the figure presents numerous data collection sources, this study has focused 
on interviews and Lynk & Co’s external communication. The stages of coding are in figure 3.1 
defined as initial, intermediate, and advanced coding. These diverge from the coding definitions 
used in this study, namely open, axial and selective coding, but are interpreted to have the same 
purpose. 
 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3.1, Research design framework illustrating interplay between grounded theory 
processes (Chun Tie, 2019). 
 
 
3.2 Purposive Sampling Motives  
 
The choice of using Lynk & Co was made due to their recent launch of a subscription model 
with focus on bundled services, on the European automotive market. The offer is concluded to 
converge with the theory of PSS and has therefore been relevant to the purpose of this study. 
 
Further the choice of focusing on the Product Strategy Team was made due to their knowledge 
and ability to answer questions regarding the research area, more specifically the product and 
service offer, strategy and value creation. Therefore, all interviewees were strategy managers 
employed in the company’s Product Strategy Team. However, the managers did have different 
ongoing tasks and projects related to the specifics of the company’s offer. The selection of the 
first interviewee was based on relevance to the research question, i.e., chosen based on ability 
to provide insight to the research topic, using purposive sampling as explained by Bell et al. 
 17 
(2019). Thereafter a “snowball effect” came into place as this manager was able to recommend 
other interviewees knowledgeable in the area. The primary data sample only consisted of 
managers, because they have the utmost responsibility for making choices when it comes to 
strategy, making them the most relevant actor in this decision-making process. As proved by 
Bertrand & Schoar (2003) the strategy realisation is highly affected by the managers in charge.  
 
3.3 Data Collection  
 
The study’s data collection consisted of primary data through aforementioned interviews. In 
addition, secondary data was collected to complement conducted interviews with 
complementary information.   
  
3.3.1 Primary Data  
 
The primary data of the study consist of in-person interviews with four strategy managers at 
Lynk & Co. Interviews are suitable when the research is complex and looks at details of systems 
and processes. Further, when certain positions and experience of actors have significant value 
in answering questions, such as the connection between strategy managers and strategic 
decision-making (Denscombe, 2021).  
 
The interviews were semi-structured, i.e., a set of questions were defined beforehand, but the 
interviewees were allowed to answer them freely, elaborate on ideas, and talk from their own 
point of interest. In accordance, follow up questions were asked thereafter based on clarification 
needs or demand of more elaborated answers from interviewees, in accordance with 
Denscombe (2021). The structure of the questions aimed to help avoid leading questions about 
the sustainability perspective of value creation, in order to avoid biased empiricism. The 
interview guide is presented in Appendix A and consists of two main segments: 2. The 
Subscription Model and 3. Value Creation Motives. These should unfold an understanding of 
the motives and outcomes of the case specific offer and further allow the interviewees to 
elaborate on how value is used in the day-to-day strategic work of Lynk & Co’s Product 
Strategy Team. Subsequent questions about sustainability helped the analysis by creating 
comparability between the last two segments. The interviews were also conducted on a one-to-
one basis, with one interviewee present at a time, which enables the interviewee to truly express 
opinions without being influenced by others. The researchers were active participants as the 
 18 
interviewers, conducting the interviews. Lastly, the strategy managers are referred to as SM1, 
SM2, SM3, SM4. 
Table 3.1 Interview structure 
 
 Date Duration Title of 
 interviewee 
Interview 1    
2023-04-26 22 minutes Strategy Manager 1 
(SM1) 
Interview 2    
2023-04-27 53 minutes Strategy Manager 2 
(SM2) 
Interview 3    
2023-04-27 38 minutes Strategy Manager 3 
(SM3) 
Interview 4    
2023-05-03 45 minutes Strategy Manager 4 
(SM4) 
 
 
 
3.3.2 Secondary Data  
 
In addition to conducted interviews secondary data has been collected from journals, scientific 
articles, websites and Lynk & Co’s sustainability report, in order to find relevant information. 
Secondary data also laid the foundation for the background, setting the context for the problem 
discussion and research question through reviewing already existing literature, as recommended 
by Bell et al. (2019). Secondary data also made up the foundation for the theoretical framework 
of the study. Mostly, information of these theories and concepts were found through scientific 
articles found via databases open to the University of Gothenburg. In structuring the 
methodology and particularly the interviews for our research, Patel & Davidson (2019) and Bell 
et al. (2019) have been widely used.  
 
3.4 Data analysis 
 
Qualitative research in form of interviews make up extensive and unstructured information, 
making it more difficult to analyse than other data. The researcher´s therefore need to be careful 
and meticulous in interpretation and analysis (Bell et al. 2019). The interviews were first 
 19 
transcribed with the use of Transkriptor, but further controlled by the researchers. However 
carefully so that nothing was added or changed. As mentioned by Patel & Davidson (2019) the 
most important factor in the process of transcription is awareness and carefulness in handling 
the data. 
 
3.4.1 Coding 
 
In grounded theory, coding is used to break down and categorise data as a part of the process 
of generating theory (Bell et al. 2019). As the interviews were conducted, the different answers 
were therefore broken down and sorted into different codes. These codes were then 
continuously developed throughout the entire process of data collection. Through the use of 
comparative analysis, similarities and differences between interview observations were coded.  
 
To reach a core category that conceptualize the main findings of the study, the data was broken 
down and then connected and integrated again through three different phases. The first phase 
was open coding, in which the interviews were broken down, in order to compare, identify and 
label answers from the interviewees. The second phase was axial coding, the data was further 
categorised by finding relationships between different sub-categories. The third phase was 
selective coding, here different categories were further united by finding one core category, 
creating one main idea from the data. These phases of coding are in accordance with Corbin & 
Strauss (1990).  
 
3.5 Quality  
 
Reliability is the research’s ability to withstand chance variations. Limiting the possible error 
rate and delivering consistent results. In the use of interviews, structure, and standardization of 
interviews as well as the ability of interviewer increase reliability. To store the interviews and 
register later has also increased reliability (Patel & Davidson, 2019). Furthermore, every 
interview was audio recorded so that they could be registered in detail afterwards, all to increase 
reliability.  
  
Bell et al. (2019) divide validity into internal validity and external validity. Internal validity 
regard there being a causality between observations and theoretical ideas that are developed 
thereafter. External validity regard to what extent the result and conclusion can be generalised 
to other situations. However, these measurements of validity are more accepted in quantitative 
 20 
than qualitative research, they can still be used to measure quality and potential achieved due 
to certain methodological choices. Generally, qualitative case studies are difficult to achieve 
good levels of external validity, since sample are set to one company in this study, 
generalisation must be approached carefully. However, two factors enable good internal 
validity. Firstly, the fact that interviews were conducted on a one-to-one basis, limiting 
conformity bias. Secondly, the experience and knowledge of interviewees make the 
observations in interviews credible.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 21 
4. Empirical Findings 
 
This chapter presents the results based on data collection. Firstly, Lynk & Co’s external 
communication through their website and sustainability report is examined. Thereafter follows 
three segments related to the interviews with strategy managers: Subscription Model Motives, 
Value Creation Motives and Subscription Model Outcomes. 
 
4.1 Core Values and Sustainability Report 
 
Lynk & Co demonstrates the company’s core values and sustainability work through external 
communication on e.g., their website, and further annual disclosure of sustainability impact and 
activities through a report.  
 
On Lynk & Co’s website, sustainable mobility is emphasized to be a core motive, and is further 
illustrated through mottos such as “Fewer cars, more drivers” and marketing of e.g., sharing 
initiatives and electrification. The sustainability strategy is, according to their website, to 
encourage sustainable consumer behavior through resource-minimizing offers (mainly 
carsharing) and sustainable innovation throughout the car’s whole lifecycle (renewable energy 
in production and charging). Lastly, Lynk & Co promotes “sustainable lifestyles beyond 
mobility” and argues that collaborative, community focused initiatives create long term 
structural and behavioral changes.  
 
The sustainability report (2022) also addresses sustainable mobility and further elaborates on 
climate action as an important focus area. This is reflected in several strategic initiatives such 
as “reduce emissions from value chain and operations” and “circulate materials and optimize 
vehicle life cycle”. These targets are set to be achieved through e.g., sustainable management 
and integration of climate change measures in policies, strategies, and planning. Moreover, the 
report focuses on stakeholder interaction and “joint value creation”. The company has identified 
numerous key stakeholders and disclose how the dialogue contributes to understanding of what 
values the business generates. The “society and environment” is concluded to be an important 
stakeholder. Reducing need for individual cars through carsharing, increasing resource 
efficiency through higher utilization of cars and pushing the transition towards renewable 
energy are examples of environmental values that Lynk & Co aim to create. Aforementioned 
sustainability strategies are expected to be implemented through integration in several parts of 
 22 
the business. Specifically, Business Strategy and Development is emphasized to be an important 
department that already has integrated sustainability strategies in their activities.  
 
4.2 Subscription Model Motives 
 
The subscription model is concluded to be a logic, new step towards implementing month-to-
month subscription in bundled services and hardware products. SM2 argues that the 
development of such a model has created a competitive strategic business opportunity for Lynk 
& Co. All interviewed strategy managers, representing Lynk & Co’s Product Strategy Team, 
emphasize the importance of utilizing cars, and both SM1 and SM3 stress the fact that cars 
stand still 95% of their use phase time.  
 
“The motive is to utilize the car and get the usage rate up. We use the cars 5% of 
the time and 95% they stand still. After all, that's really our purpose with this, and 
then we also don't want to be just an ordinary car brand, so therefore we want to 
be unique … flexible, hassle-free, carsharing etcetera” 
 
SM3 (2023-04-27) 
 
SM1 illustrates general utilizing issues by comparing car production CO2 emissions with use 
phase CO2 emissions and concludes that production creates much more negative externalities 
than the use of a car. SM3 explains that Lynk & Co wants to become a unique brand with the 
subscription, their community, and the hassle free and flexible offer. 
 
SM2 elaborates on Lynk & Co’s business model opportunities by separating the motives with 
the carsharing service from the motives with the subscription model and concludes that the 
subscription model primarily is a financially beneficial construct. Further, carsharing should 
contribute to utilizing the cars that are produced and ultimately reduce total car volumes. But 
SM2 also notes that the carsharing service is dependent on how customers react to the 
subscription model – the service is bundled and interconnected with the subscription. Therefore, 
the amount of carsharing customers relates to e.g., the willingness of a subscriber to share their 
car. The ambition with carsharing is to offer the possibility to lend out the car when not needed 
and the subscription should contribute to this by providing flexibility and accessibility. SM3 
highlights that the subscription model converges with the development of sharing economy and 
 23 
further connects the demand of carsharing to economic incentives for the customers. The 
monthly subscription cost for the customer can be reduced by lending out the subscribed car 
for an hourly or daily fee. Further, Lynk & Co does not charge customers for sharing their car, 
i.e., the carsharing service is not a source of revenue for the company, as of now. Nevertheless, 
the ambition is to make carsharing a revenue stream in the future (SM1). 
 
4.3 Value Creation Motives 
 
SM1 explains that value can be interpreted as all offered additions to a product, such as qualities 
of the product and extra services. The same strategy manager also mentions the triangular 
framework of customer, owner and employer. One example of how Lynk & Co creates value 
is their community that enables “co-creation” through workshops, events, coworking spaces 
and more. Further, SM1 elaborates on value creation from a customer perspective and 
concludes that small added features to the car such as good technical support and customer 
service binds customers to the company. Value creation connected with customer growth and 
retention, is concluded to be of high importance.  
 
“We're putting a high emphasis on sustainability. That means for people who care 
about it, this would be the car brand. For people who believe in peer-to-peer 
sharing, this would be the car brand. For people who'd like to make money, 
because right now we're still not earning anything of car sharing. So exactly the 
fee that you lend out your subscription car for, is what you're going to receive. 
And we're not taking anything from it. I think all these things create value. And 
for us, it basically just means that people are staying with us. And this is very 
important, especially in the first phases of a company's life.” 
 
SM1 (2023-04-26) 
 
SM2 differentiates between customer, environmental and social value, and concludes that while 
all three motives are important, the role of the strategy manager is mainly connected to customer 
value creation. Thereafter, it is the company’s task to translate the values into environmental 
and social outcomes. SM3 explains that customer value constitutes the core motive of the 
strategic role and that creating relevant products and services contributes to the financial 
performance of Lynk & Co.  
 24 
 
SM4 further discusses the owners (shareholders) of the company as another important 
stakeholder which they are aiming to create value for. The shareholders’ main objective is 
possibly dividend from their investment. From that perspective the value created would 
ultimately be profit that leads to financial returns for shareholders, according to SM4. SM3 
elaborates on the fact that revenue and financial health is an important form of value that needs 
to be created. However, this is what enables value creation for other stakeholders as well.  
 
SM4 talks about the interconnectedness between different value creation motives. So, while 
financial value enables other forms of value creation as mentioned above, SM4 draw the 
connection between social and environmental values, and customer values. To be relevant to 
Lynk & Co’s customers, they need to focus on and implement a sustainability strategy. 
 
“There is a connection to financial returns. Because you are not relevant to 
customers today if you do not have a sustainability focus, I would say. It is moving 
more and more in that direction, both legislation and sustainability. So that in 
order to be relevant to customers and to be able to continue selling and actually 
make money, you need to have a sustainability strategy in my opinion.” 
 
SM4 (2023-05-03) 
 
4.4 Subscription Model Outcomes  
 
Lastly, the strategy managers disclosed some observed outcomes of the subscription model 
implementation. SM1 emphasizes that the pricing of the offer has been beneficial for customer 
retention. An additional benefit for the customer of the subscription model is that it allows 
access to a car without the troubles that might come with owning one. The customer does not 
need to make detailed decisions but is rather offered a standardized car, which minimizes both 
time and energy that the customer otherwise spends on research before getting a car. SM2 
further discusses the user benefits of the subscription. Customers have access to the car for the 
precise period they need one, and end the subscription with twenty days notice period, 
increasing the flexibility of car usage. Further, customers that plan to use the car for a short 
period of time (two to three months) tend to subscribe for much longer periods (two to three 
 25 
years). The close relationship with customers is stressed to have been of financial importance 
for Lynk & Co. 
 
”I think for the user the biggest benefit is this like freedom of mind that they don't 
need to worry about too many things.” 
 
SM2 (2023-04-27) 
 
SM1 and SM2 both mention the environmental outcomes of having fewer cars because of the 
subscription model and bundled carsharing service. Following one of the aforementioned aims 
– to increase utilization, has had environmental impact. SM1 mentions calculations showing 
several thousand cars not being produced, lowering overall emission, because of Lynk & Co’s 
subscription model. Moreover, the environmental outcomes of the carsharing service are 
problematized. SM2 discusses the contradiction of having a business model that relies on high 
supply of cars on the road that simultaneously should contribute to less cars on the roads. The 
carsharing service requires high availability and therefore enough cars on the street for people 
to adopt the service.  
 
The business model of an automotive subscription model is rather new territory for the entire 
industry according to SM3. This leads to new operational challenges that occur as a 
consequence of the business model characteristics. The increased firm responsibility of the cars 
leads to operational challenges that imply costs for the firm: e.g., general logistics, car service 
and tire changes (SM3, SM2). Furthermore, the subscription model has entailed some strategic 
challenges connected to the cars. SM4 discusses how material choices impact the durability and 
quality of the car and emphasizes the connection to utilization and sustainability. This is 
reflected in decisions about the car construction e.g., interior colours and technical solutions. 
Such should contribute to increased durability and therefore longer fleet cycles (SM4).  
 
Since the subscription is based on a set price, the cars need to stay up to date to satisfy 
customers. This means that cars used in the subscription needs to be sold after around 1 year, 
which creates a challenge of disposal, according to SM3. SM4 further emphasizes that Lynk & 
Co is identifying strongly with the subscription model and car sharing service and observe 
financial and environmental challenges related to management of de-fleeted cars. SM2 also 
 26 
perceives the short subscription period to be a major difficulty, but rather suggest lower-level 
subscription, where older cars can still be used in the model but at a lower monthly fee.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 27 
5. Analysis 
 
In this chapter a comparative analysis of the empirical findings will be presented, based on 
grounded theory coding. A connection between empiricism and previously established research 
presented in the theoretical framework will be made. The purpose is to explore and connect 
concepts and subsequently find a core category that represents the central phenomenon of this 
case study.  
 
5.1 Identification of Motives 
 
The subscription model bundle with a P2P carsharing service is unique because it entails a 
Customer-to-Customer carsharing platform while the company provides the fleet car user with 
product ownership, the sharing platform and lastly include service responsibilities through the 
B2C subscription. Therefore, the B2C subscription offer motives presented in empirical 
findings can be concluded to partly lay the foundation for the carsharing outcomes, which is 
consistent with Teece’s (2010) findings on how variability in carsharing model characteristics 
impacts its outcomes. The Product Strategy Team elaborates on the subscription model motives 
from the two following interconnected perspectives.  
 
Firstly, the subscription model should contribute to sustainable outcomes through a decrease in 
produced cars and thus, lower car volumes on the roads. This leads to lower GHG emission 
rates for two reasons, primarily lower production-phase emissions, but also lower use-phase 
emissions (which partly depends on renewable energy innovation). The disclosed strategy to 
circulate materials and optimize vehicle life cycle are connected to the strategy managers 
expressed utilization motives and moreover MacArthur’s (2013) CE arguments about tighter 
circles downstream that adds value with little resource intervention. Further, the bundled 
carsharing service aims to create demand-side effects that change customer behaviour, shifting 
traditional ownership preferences into a more flexible subscription alternative that promotes 
utilization. The carsharing service connects to literature about SE – the service-oriented P2P 
business model contributes to minimizing resource use (Cohen and Kietzmann, 2014; 
Nansubuga and Kowalkowski, 2021). 
 
Secondly, the subscription model should contribute to financial outcomes and is constructed to 
create financial performance for Lynk & Co. Carsharing contributes to this by creating brand 
awareness through extensive non-subscriber use and therefore future customer growth. The 
 28 
present revenue streams of the subscription model and the carsharing service are decoupled – 
currently, the carsharing service does not contribute to Lynk & Co’s revenues. Therefore, the 
core business – the B2C subscription, is interpreted to have the motive of predominantly 
constituting a financially sustainable model. The carsharing service, on the other hand, creates 
sustainability and economic incentives for customers. Ultimately, the ambition is that the dual 
motives enable a balance of economic growth and environmental protection.  
 
All strategy managers disclose strategic awareness and ambition to balance financial and 
environmental motives through the subscription model, but to different extent. Nevertheless, 
much of the empiricism converge with Elkington’s (1994) TBL framework and the company’s 
core values presented through the sustainability report (2022). One of the communicated main 
motives, to reduce car volumes by increasing utilization, is in this analysis concluded to have 
financial benefits besides being a solution to GHG emission challenges. Empiricism show 
evidence that the Product Strategy Team has observed sustainable development opportunities 
by implementing their subscription model. This converges with the existing scientific literature 
on the connection between sustainable development and PSS models (Goedkoop et al. 1999; 
Wang et al. 2011; Ceschin, 2013; Mahut et al., 2016) and further creates arguments for the 
aforementioned ambition to balance environmental and financial values (Elkington, 2014). But 
the separation of carsharing motives and subscription model motives also illustrates the 
complexity of developing a PSS model that creates sustainable balance. The dual motives of 
financial outcomes and environmental protection creates sometimes contradictory demands that 
according to Dohnalová and Zimola (2014) can lead to deprioritized values. The perception of 
a causal relationship between Lynk & Co’s motives, where financial outcomes is the cause and 
resource-minimizing outcomes is the effect, further illustrates the value creation hierarchy. 
Decision-making will likely be based on a prioritisation of the values that are ought to be 
created, establishing a means and ends dissonance between the expressed motives and the 
outcomes of those.  
 
Most of the interviewed strategy managers discuss their value creation motives from the 
perspective of the customer, i.e., the main purpose of their strategic role is to create value for 
customers. Lynk & Co’s relationship to customers is illustrated from the perspective of owners, 
enlightened to be important stakeholders. To create value for the owners, the company must 
perform financially by e.g., offering relevant products and services and thus retaining and 
growing their customer segments. Some value creation motives can therefore be interpreted to 
 29 
converge with agency theory. The emphasis on customer value enlightens the constant 
challenge of addressing and resolving agent-principal problems (Windsor, 2017). So, the 
strategic management of Lynk & Co has an internal scope of focus where the firm’s owners’ 
and managers’ value creation motives are to align. From that perspective, the motives are 
straight-forward and singular in the sense that the strategy managers perceive a financial 
purpose of creating shareholder value (Windsor, 2017). But the strategy managers also show 
an understanding of value creation in a broader context, often referring to the aforementioned 
subscription model and carsharing motives. For example, SM4 perceives sustainability focus 
and sustainability strategies as prerequisites of the modern automotive industry. The connection 
between relevancy and sustainability is explicit and suggests that there is a relationship between 
customer value and value creation in a broader, stakeholder theory context. As mentioned, there 
is evidence that SM2 and SM3 perceive external stakeholder value as an outcome of financial 
performance, which can explain why the focus on customer value is being an important concern 
for the Product Strategy Team. The high focus on customer value could also be a consequence 
of the service-oriented PSS characteristics – literature on PSS shows that servitization has 
created new opportunities in relation to customers. The model requires high customer 
interaction and imposes collaborative complexity and a great demand on strategic adaptability 
from the related management team (Genzlinger et al., 2020; Mahut et al., 2016).  
 
5.2 Comparison of Motives and Outcomes 
 
The interpreted strategic core motive of creating customer value has had implications for the 
outcomes of the subscription model. Much of the perceived customer benefits derive from the 
transition from car ownership to month-to-month subscription and its bundled services. The 
focus on flexibility that enables car usage for short periods of time has been lucrative – customer 
base is retained and grow because of the provided PSS model. The bundled services such as tire 
change, road-side assistance et cetera, contribute to customer satisfaction and tangent the 
aforementioned contemporary scientific literature on the opportunities that occur when 
companies increase customer interaction through PSS models (Genzlinger et al., 2020; Mahut 
et al., 2016). Further, such beneficial outcomes of the subscription model can be strengthened 
by Goedkoop et al. (1999) statement that PSS combinations of products and services can be 
used in order to fulfil customer needs and thus create more customer value.  
 
 30 
While Lynk & Co successfully create customer value through the month-to-month subscription 
model, the strategic managers bring up several challenges that arise from the model. A majority 
relate to operational management and can be explained by the fact that the PSS model has 
created lifecycle-spanning product and service responsibilities for Lynk & Co. The 
infrastructure of the subscription model creates logistical complexity because of the product 
and service bundle and further the flexibility of the offer. Managing pick-ups of cancelled 
subscription cars, reallocating subscription cars, planning tire changes and standard car services 
are examples of operational responsibilities that create costs for the company. Such are results 
of the infrastructure and networks that are created through the PSS model (Mont, 2002). 
 
The reason for the Product Strategy Team’s high emphasis on customer value possibly derives 
from an understanding of the relationship between drivers and barriers for sustainable business 
model implementation. Fleury et al., (2017) argues that carsharing demand is driven by 
environmental values but is essentially an effect of effort expectancy, i.e., customers will 
prioritise carsharing services based on flexibility, practicability et cetera. Therefore, SM4’s 
discussion about that stakeholder value outcomes being a consequence of a financially 
sustainable business model can be interpreted to have connections to literature about such a 
causal relationship (Fleury et al., 2017; Nansubuga and Kowalkowski, 2021).  
 
The comparative analysis of this study’s empirical findings is compounded with a coding table 
(5.1) inspired by Glaser and Strauss (1967) grounded theory approach. The table summarizes 
the most relevant codes, constituting data comparison and concept comparison, and further 
illustrates the interconnectedness of categories and concepts. The aim with the coding table is 
to present a core category for the study – the essential finding that connects to various 
perspectives of data and concepts.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 31 
Table 5.1 Comparative Analysis: Grounded Theory Coding 
Open Coding Axial Coding Selective Core Category 
Coding 
Circulate materials and optimize vehicle use: Lynk & 
Co aim to reuse their cars through re-fleeting – the 
offer implies that the customer might not get a new car 
Utilization: create External 
when subscribing.  
resource- stakeholder 
 
minimizing focus 
Carsharing service: customers that subscribe to a car 
outcomes  
can P2P share it with others. This creates utilization of 
stationary cars. 
 
Relevant products and services: Lynk & Co’s 
subscription model has created a business opportunity 
that satisfies customers’ demands and needs.  
Flexibility: the transition to month-to-month  
subscription has been beneficial for customer growth  
Increase customer 
& retention. Value Creation 
value 
 Hierarchy 
Unique brand: the concept of Lynk & Co has enabled  
local cluster development through high customer 
interaction and collaborations with other brands etc. Principal-Agent 
Problem 
Financial benefits of subscription model: the fleet cars 
create monthly revenue and are thereafter sold. 
 
Carsharing increases utilization but is not a source of 
Financial 
revenue. 
performance 
Operational challenges: the subscription model creates 
product lifecycle-spanning responsibilities for Lynk & 
Co through the PSS infrastructure – costs. 
 32 
6. Discussion 
 
This chapter presents a discussion of the empirical findings. The limitations of the case study 
are discussed, and thereafter follows reasoning about methodology implications.  
 
This study contributes to the understanding of how strategy managers’ value creation motives 
impact sustainable outcomes of PSS models by enlightening the connection between Lynk & 
Co’s strategic management and the sustainable outcomes of their subscription model. The 
analysis shows that Lynk & Co’s purpose of implementing a business model that creates both 
financial and environmental value leads to contradictory motives for the strategic decision 
makers – in this case Lynk & Co’s strategy managers. The ambition to increase utilization 
through a service-oriented offer creates new challenges in relation to customer interaction. 
Thus, the focus on value creation derives from firm responsibilities to satisfy customer demands 
in order to structure a financially sustainable business model. The environmental value creation 
motive of utilization is therefore deprioritized which imposes a risk on the sustainable outcomes 
of Lynk & Co’s PSS model. It can therefore be concluded that the study has provided with a 
direction of the outcomes, identifying the relationship between different value creation motives, 
but does lack contributions of quantifiable sort – the extent to which the value creation 
hierarchy impacts sustainable outcomes is undefined.  
 
The analysis has answered the study’s research question (RQ) from the perspective of Lynk & 
Co’s Product Strategy Team and the unique automotive business model of a subscription offer 
(B2C) bundled with a carsharing service (C2C). Because this is a case study, and the purpose 
of the study is to increase the understanding of the automotive industry in general, the scope 
should be elaborated on. The findings on Lynk & Co’s value creation motives and related PSS 
outcomes are concluded to partly be an effect of the company specific business model and 
business strategies (Barquet et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2021; Roman et al., 2023). In that aspect, 
the analysis is limited to the case of Lynk & Co. Thus, conclusions about the empirical findings 
will not necessarily be applicable for the automotive industry in general. Nevertheless, scientific 
literature on related business model and strategy characteristics suggests that some general 
principles are present and therefore contribute to a broad scope of scientific research (Mahut et 
al., 2016; Boehm and Thomas, 2013). For instance, carsharing has shown to possess some 
general drivers and barriers, independent of the specific carsharing model (Münzel et al., 2019; 
Fleury et al., 2017; Valor, 2020). From that perspective, it can be concluded that the findings 
 33 
of this study will contribute to the understanding of how value creation motives impact 
sustainable PSS in the automotive industry, although partly limited to Lynk & Co’s business 
structures.  
 
Further, this study has had a thorough inductive research approach, based on grounded theory, 
which has had implications for the sampling motives, data collection and the analytical 
approach. The purpose was to enhance a contrasting perspective of traditional scientific 
research in the automotive industry, to subsequently avoid grand theory paradigms. The study 
focused on letting a theory take shape based on patterns found in the explanations given during 
data collection. The grounded theory approach is established in organisation and management 
research, but in these cases often connected to sociology, anthropology and cultural research 
studies. The field of this research study can be conceptualized around “sustainability 
transitions”, i.e., transformations to socio-technical systems that aim to create more sustainable 
modes of production and consumption. Such have been elaborated on in scientific literature and 
Markard et al., (2012) argues that e.g., the social-science research contributes to the 
development of more fundamental sustainability transformations. From that perspective, the 
interdisciplinary connections between strategic management, corporate sustainability and 
social-science should be enhanced, and approaching the Lynk & Co case study with the use of 
grounded theory coding further helped the analysis move into that direction. Further, the 
comparative analysis method created a structured approach to interpretation of empiricism, but 
the extent of which it was supposed to be based on a theoretical framework created confusion. 
The coding table (5.1) shows that e.g., the selective coding categories are connected to the 
related established sciences of agency theory and stakeholder theory. This partly contradicts the 
purpose of the grounded theory approach enabling new theories taking shape. On the other 
hand, the analysis illustrates a more nuanced and complex relationship between the coding 
categories, implying possibilities for new theories to develop. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 34 
7. Conclusion 
 
This chapter contributes with a conclusion on the analysed and discussed empirical findings of 
the study. Thereafter, theoretical and practical implications are presented and lastly a 
discussion on future research.  
 
7.1 Concluding remarks  
 
The analysis indicates that there is a dual relationship between Lynk & Co’s value creation 
motives, which is illustrated by the practical example of the decoupled subscription model and 
carsharing service motives. These derive from the expressed ambitions to a) create a financially 
sustainable business model, and b) create resource-minimizing outcomes. These two interpreted 
main motives are elaborated on through customer value creation, which is argued to construct 
a prerequisite for financial sustainability and subsequently creation of broader stakeholder 
value. The perception of a causal relationship between Lynk & Co’s two main motives where 
financial performance is the cause and resource-minimizing outcomes is the effect, illustrates a 
value creation hierarchy. Therefore, decision-making will likely be based on a prioritisation of 
the values that are ought to be created, establishing a means and ends dissonance between the 
expressed motives and the outcomes of those.  
 
Lastly, this study is concluded to have a practical aim in the sense that it approaches a real-life 
case. Therefore, it should possess some practical implications for Lynk & Co. The case study 
highlights a strategic management relationship between value creation motives and sustainable 
outcomes of PSS models. Further, it approaches the purpose and RQ from the perspective of 
strategy managers. Therefore, the hope is that the findings can be applied in the context of future 
strategic development for Lynk & Co, and moreover contributes with a new scientific and case-
specific angle in future decision-making. The study also contributes to scientific literature by 
confirming that research in Corporate Sustainability can be approached interdisciplinary 
through constructive social-science methodology theories, e.g., grounded theory. More so in 
the automotive industry. 
 
7.2 Future research  
 
As the automotive industry is complex and ever changing, the need for further and extended 
research is always relevant. The concept of sustainable PSS is also rather new territory for the 
 35 
field, although as shown has expected impacts on the future of the automotive industry. The 
limitations of this study, as a bachelor’s degree level case study, open up for several areas of 
extended research. Following suggestions is made as to how the field can be broadened and our 
findings validated and extended by future research. 
 
–  Broaden the scope, as this study is solely based on the case of Lynk & Co, further 
research for the entirety of the industry would extend the knowledge on PSS in the 
automotive industry.  
 
– Increase the understanding of how other stakeholders than strategic managers look at 
and prioritise value creation motives, and subsequently implementation of PSS.  
 
– Further elaborate on the causal relationship between creating a financially sustainable 
business model and balancing the three pillars of Elkington’s TBL. How do 
policymaking and legislation impact the possibilities to prioritise environmental values 
more? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 36 
References 
 
Alonso-González, M.J., Liu, T., Cats, O., Van Oort, N. and Hoogendoorn, S. (2018). The 
Potential of Demand-Responsive Transport as a Complement to Public Transport: An 
Assessment Framework and an Empirical Evaluation. Transportation Research Record: 
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2672(8), pp.879–889. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118790842. 
Awan, U., Kanwl, N. and S. Bhutta, M.K. (2020). A Literature Analysis of Definitions for a 
Circular Economy. [online] Research Gate. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-
1050/13/2/859 [Accessed 12 Apr. 2023]. 
Baden-Fuller, C. Morgan, M S. (2010) Business Models as Models, Long Range Planning, 
Volume 43, Issues 2–3, Pages 156-171, ISSN 0024-6301. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.02.005 
 
Baines, T.S., Lightfoot, H.W., Evans, S., Neely, A., Greenough, R., Peppard, J., Roy, R., 
Shehab, E., Braganza, A., Tiwari, A., Alcock, J.R., Angus, J.P., Bastl, M., Cousens, A., 
Irving, P., Johnson, M., Kingston, J., Lockett, H., Martinez, V. and Michele, P. (2007). State-
of-the-art in product-service systems. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 
Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 221(10), pp.1543–1552. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1243/09544054jem858. 
Barnes, S.J. and Mattsson, J. (2016). Understanding current and future issues in collaborative 
consumption: A four-stage Delphi study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 
pp.200–211. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.006. 
Barquet, A.P., Seidel, J., Seliger, G. and Kohl, H. (2016). Sustainability Factors for PSS 
Business Models. Procedia CIRP, 47, pp.436–441. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.03.021. 
Barquet, A.P.B., Steingrímsson, J.G., Seliger, G. and Rozenfeld, H. (2015). Method to Create 
Proposals for PSS Business Models. Procedia CIRP, 30, pp.13–17. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.148. 
Bell, E., Bryman, A. and Harley, B. (2019). Business Research Methods. 5th ed. Oxford: 
Oxford University Press. 
 37 
Bertrand, M. and Schoar, A. (2003). Managing with Style: The Effect of Managers on Firm 
Policies. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, [online] 118(4), pp.1169–1208. Available at: 
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25053937 [Accessed 23 May 2023]. 
Boehm, M. and Thomas, O. (2013). Looking beyond the rim of one’s teacup: a 
multidisciplinary literature review of Product-Service Systems in Information Systems, 
Business Management, and Engineering & Design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 
pp.245–260. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.019. 
Bowman, C. and Ambrosini, V. (2010). How value is created, captured and destroyed. 
European Business Review, 22(5), pp.479–495. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341011068903. 
Ceschin, F. (2013). Critical factors for implementing and diffusing sustainable product-
Service systems: insights from innovation studies and companies’ experiences. Journal of 
Cleaner Production, 45, pp.74–88. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.034. 
Chun Tie, Y., Birks, M. and Francis, K. (2019). Grounded Theory research: a Design 
Framework for Novice Researchers. SAGE Open Medicine, [online] 7(1). 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118822927.  
Cohen, B. and Kietzmann, J. (2014). Ride On! Mobility Business Models for the Sharing 
Economy. Organization & Environment, 27(3), pp.279–296. 
Corbin, J.M. and Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and 
evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), pp.3–21. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00988593. 
Coreynen, W., Matthyssens, P. and Van Bockhaven, W. (2017). Boosting servitization 
through digitization: Pathways and dynamic resource configurations for manufacturers. 
Industrial Marketing Management, 60, pp.42–53. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.04.012. 
Corte, V. and Gaudio, G. (2014). A LITERATURE REVIEW ON VALUE CREATION AND 
VALUE CAPTURING IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT STUDIES. Corporate Ownership 
& Control, 11(2), p.3. 
 38 
Costa Climent, R. and M. Haftor, D. (2020). Value creation through the evolution of business 
model themes. [online] Available at: https://uu.diva-
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1519534/FULLTEXT01.pdf. 
de Jesus Pacheco, D.A., ten Caten, C.S., Jung, C.F., Pergher, I. and Hunt, J.D. (2022). Triple 
Bottom Line impacts of traditional Product-Service Systems models: Myth or truth? A 
Natural Language Understanding approach. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 96, 
p.106819. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106819. 
Denscombe, M. (2021). The Good Research Guide (4th ed.). Open University Press. 
 
Dohnalová, Z. and Zimola, B. (2014). Corporate Stakeholder Management. Procedia - Social 
and Behavioral Sciences, 110, pp.879–886. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.933. 
EEA (2022). Transport and environment report 2021 — European Environment Agency. 
[online] www.eea.europa.eu. Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/transport-
and-environment-report-2021. 
Elbanna, S., Thanos, I.C. and Jansen, R.J.G. (2020). A Literature Review of the Strategic 
Decision-Making Context: A Synthesis of Previous Mixed Findings and an Agenda for the 
Way Forward. M@n@gement, [online] 23(2), pp.42–60. Available at: 
https://www.cairn.info/revue-management-2020-2-page-42.htm. 
Elkington, J. (1998). ACCOUNTING FOR THE TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE. Measuring 
Business Excellence, 2(3), pp.18–22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025539. 
Fleury, S., Tom, A., Jamet, E. and Colas-Maheux, E. (2017). What drives corporate 
carsharing acceptance? A French case study. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic 
Psychology and Behaviour, [online] 45, pp.218–227. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.12.004. 
Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L. and Simone de Colle (2010). 
Stakeholder Theory. Cambridge University Press. 
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for 
Qualitative Research. Nursing Research, 17(4), p.364. doi:https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-
196807000-00014. 
 39 
Gaiardelli, P., Resta, B., Martinez, V., Pinto, R. and Albores, P. (2014). A classification 
model for product-service offerings. Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 66, pp.507–519. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.032. 
Genzlinger, F., Zejnilovic, L. and Bustinza, O.F. (2020). Servitization in the automotive 
industry: How car manufacturers become mobility service providers. Strategic Change, 29(2), 
pp.215–226. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2322. 
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C. and Ulgiati, S. (2016). A Review on Circular Economy: the 
Expected Transition to a Balanced Interplay of Environmental and Economic Systems. 
Journal of Cleaner Production, [online] 114(0959-6526), pp.11–32. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007. 
Giovannoni, E. and Fabietti, G. (2013). What Is Sustainability? A Review of the Concept and 
Its Applications. Integrated Reporting, pp.21–40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
02168-3_2. 
Goedkoop, M.J., van Halen, C.J.G., te Riele, H.R.M. and Rommens, P.J.M. (1999) Product 
Service System, Ecological and Economic Basic. The Report No. 1999/36 Submitted to 
Ministerje van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, Hague. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293825611_Product_Service_systems_Ecological_a
nd_Economic_Basics 
Heinen, E., Harshfield, A., Panter, J., Mackett, R. and Ogilvie, D. (2017). Does exposure to 
new transport infrastructure result in modal shifts? Patterns of change in commute mode 
choices in a four-year quasi-experimental cohort study. Journal of Transport & Health, 6, 
pp.396–410. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.07.009. 
Hossain, M. (2020). Sharing Economy: A Comprehensive Literature Review. SSRN 
Electronic Journal. doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3536188. 
IPCC (2022). Mitigation of Climate Change Climate Change 2022 Working Group III 
contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change. [online] Available at: 
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FullReport.pdf. 
 40 
ITF (2019). ITF Transport Outlook 2019 | READ online. [online] oecd-ilibrary.org. Available 
at: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/transport/itf-transport-outlook-2019_transp_outlook-en-2019-
en#page20 [Accessed 14 Apr. 2023]. 
Iung, B. and Levrat, E. (2014). Advanced Maintenance Services for Promoting Sustainability. 
Procedia CIRP, 22, pp.15–22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.07.018. 
Johnstone, S., Dainty, A. and Wilkinson, A. (2009). Integrating products and services through 
life: an aerospace experience. International Journal of Operations & Production 
Management, 29(5), pp.520–538. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570910953612. 
Kasulaitis, B.V., Babbitt, C.W. and Krock, A.K. (2018). Dematerialization and the Circular 
Economy: Comparing Strategies to Reduce Material Impacts of the Consumer Electronic 
Product Ecosystem. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1), pp.119–132. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12756. 
Kohtamäki, M., Parida, V., Oghazi, P., Gebauer, H. and Baines, T. (2019). Digital 
servitization business models in ecosystems: A theory of the firm. Journal of Business 
Research, 104. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.06.027. 
Kohtamäki, M., Baines, T., Rabetino, R., Bigdeli, A., Kowalkowski, C., Oliva, R., & Parida, 
V. (2021). Servitization Process. In The Palgrave Handbook of Servitization (p. The Palgrave 
Handbook of Servitization, 2021). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG. 
Kowalkowski, C., Gebauer, H., Kamp, B. and Parry, G. (2017). Servitization and 
deservitization: Overview, concepts, and definitions. Industrial Marketing Management, 
[online] 60, pp.4–10. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.12.007. 
Lindström, J., Nilsson, K., Parida, V., Sjödin, D.R. and Ylinenpää, H. (2015). Sustainable 
Management of Operation for Functional Products: Which Customer Values are of Interest 
for Marketing and Sales? Procedia CIRP, 30, pp.299–304. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.131. 
Liu, X., Deng, Q., Gong, G., Zhao, X. and Li, K. (2021). Evaluating the interactions of multi-
dimensional value for sustainable product-service system with grey DEMATEL-ANP 
approach. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 60, pp.449–458. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2021.07.006. 
 41 
Lynk & Co (2023). Hållbarhet. [online] www.lynkco.com. Available at: 
https://www.lynkco.com/sv-se/sustainability [Accessed 1 Jun. 2023]. 
MacArthur, E. (2013). TOWARDS THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY Economic and business 
rationale for an accelerated transition. [online] Available at: 
https://www.werktrends.nl/app/uploads/2015/06/Rapport_McKinsey-
Towards_A_Circular_Economy.pdf. 
Mahut, F., Daaboul, J., Bricogne, M. and Eynard, B. (2016). Product-Service Systems for 
servitization of the automotive industry: a literature review. International Journal of 
Production Research, 55(7), pp.2102–2120. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1252864. 
Maldonado-Guzmán, G., Garza-Reyes, J.A. and Pinzón-Castro, Y. (2020). Eco-innovation 
and the circular economy in the automotive industry. Benchmarking: An International 
Journal, 28(2), pp.621–635. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-06-2020-0317. 
Markard, J., Raven, R. and Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of 
research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), pp.955–967. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013. 
Martinez, V., Bastl, M., Kingston, J. and Evans, S. (2010). Challenges in transforming 
manufacturing organisations into product-service providers. [online] Emerald eJournals 
Premier. Available at: https://www-emerald-
com.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/insight/content/doi/10.1108/17410381011046571/full/html [Accessed 4 
Apr. 2023]. 
McVea, J.F. and Freeman, R.E. (2005). A Names-and-Faces Approach to Stakeholder 
Management. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(1), pp.57–69. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492604270799. 
McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D.S. (2010). Creating and capturing value: Strategic corporate 
social responsibility, resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal 
of Management, 37(5), pp.1480–1495. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385696. 
Mitchell, M., Curtis, A. and Davidson, P. (2007). Title: Can the ‘triple bottom line’ concept 
help organisations respond to sustainability issues? [online] Available at: 
 42 
https://researchoutput.csu.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/9624730/CSU269417.pdf [Accessed 11 
Apr. 2023]. 
Mont, O.K. (2002). Clarifying the concept of product–service system. Journal of Cleaner 
Production, 10(3), pp.237–245. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-6526(01)00039-7. 
Moretti, L. and Loprencipe, G. (2018). Climate Change and Transport Infrastructures: State of 
the Art. Sustainability, 10(11), p.4098. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114098. 
Münzel, K., Boon, W., Frenken, K., Blomme, J. and van der Linden, D. (2019). Explaining 
carsharing supply across Western European cities. International Journal of Sustainable 
Transportation, pp.1–12. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1542756. 
Naimoli, S. and Wilcox, B. (2023). 5 Shifts to Transform Transportation Systems and Meet 
Climate Goals. www.wri.org. [online] Available at: https://www.wri.org/insights/shifts-
transform-transportation-systems-climate-goals [Accessed 17 Apr. 2023]. 
Nalebuff, B. and Brandenburger, A.M. (1997). The Added-Value Theory of Business. [online] 
Strategy+business. Available at: https://www.strategy-business.com/article/12669 [Accessed 
24 Apr. 2023]. 
Nansubuga, B. and Kowalkowski, C. (2021). Carsharing: a systematic literature review and 
research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 32(6), pp.55–91. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/josm-10-2020-0344. 
Newman, P. (2017). Decoupling Economic Growth from Fossil Fuels. Modern Economy, 
08(06), pp.791–805. doi:https://doi.org/10.4236/me.2017.86055. 
Noppers, E.H., Keizer, K., Milovanovic, M. and Steg, L. (2016). The importance of 
instrumental, symbolic, and environmental attributes for the adoption of smart energy 
systems. Energy Policy, 98, pp.12–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.08.007. 
Opazo-Basáez, M., Vendrell-Herrero, F. and Bustinza, O. (2018). Uncovering Productivity 
Gains of Digital and Green Servitization: Implications from the Automotive Industry. 
Sustainability, 10(5), p.1524. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051524. 
Patel, R., & Davidson, B. (2019). Forskningsmetodikens grunder (5th ed.). Studentlitteratur 
AB. 
 
 43 
Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2011). HBR.ORG THE BIG IDEA Creating Shared Value How to 
reinvent capitalism-and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. [online] Available at: 
https://moodle.luniversitenumerique.fr/pluginfile.php/6274/mod_folder/content/0/8.%20La%
20valeur%20partage%CC%81e%20-%20Micheal%20Porter.pdf. 
Priem, R.L. (2007). A Consumer Perspective on Value Creation. Academy of Management 
Review, 32(1), pp.219–235. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.23464055. 
Purvis, B., Mao, Y. and Robinson, D. (2019). Three Pillars of sustainability: in Search of 
Conceptual Origins. Sustainability Science, 14(3), pp.681–695. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5. 
Roman, P., Thiry, G., Muylaert, C., Ruwet, C. and Maréchal, K. (2023). Defining and 
identifying strongly sustainable product-service systems (SSPSS). Journal of Cleaner 
Production, 391, p.136295. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136295. 
Sridhar, K. (2011). A multi-dimensional criticism of the Triple Bottom Line reporting 
approach. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 6(1), p.49. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1504/ijbge.2011.037606. 
Stieb, J.A. (2008). Assessing Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 
[online] 87(3), pp.401–414. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9928-4. 
Tang, B.-J., Li, X.-Y., Yu, B. and Wei, Y.-M. (2019). Sustainable development pathway for 
intercity passenger transport: A case study of China. Applied Energy, 254, p.113632. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113632. 
Teece, D.J. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategy and Innovation. Long Range 
Planning, 43(2-3), pp.172–194. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003. 
Tseng, M.-L., Wu, K.-J., Chiu, A.SF., Lim, M.K. and Tan, K. (2019). Reprint of: Service 
innovation in sustainable product service systems: Improving performance under linguistic 
preferences. International Journal of Production Economics, 217, pp.159–170. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.09.013. 
UNFCCC (2022). The Paris Agreement. [online] UNFCCC. Available at: 
https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement. 
 44 
Valor, C. (2020). ANTICIPATED EMOTIONS AND RESISTANCE TO INNOVATIONS: 
THE CASE OF P2P CAR SHARING. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 
37, pp.50–65. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.08.001. 
Vandermerwe, S. and Rada, J. (1988). Servitization of business: Adding value by adding 
services. European Management Journal, 6(4), pp.314–324. 
Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P. and Akaka, M.A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service 
systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), pp.145–152. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003. 
Wang, P.P., Ming, X.G., Li, D., Kong, F.B., Wang, L. and Wu, Z.Y. (2011). Modular 
Development of Product Service Systems. Concurrent Engineering, 19(1), pp.85–96. 
doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1063293x11403508. 
Windsor, D. (2017). Value Creation Theory: Literature Review and Theory Assessment. 
Stakeholder Management, pp.75–100. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/s2514-175920170000004.  
Wolfram, P. and Wiedmann, T. (2017). Electrifying Australian transport: Hybrid life cycle 
analysis of a transition to electric light-duty vehicles and renewable electricity. Applied 
Energy, 206, pp.531–540. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.219. 
Yip, W.S., Zhou, H. and To, S. (2023). A critical analysis on the triple bottom line of 
sustainable manufacturing: key findings and implications. Environmental Science and 
Pollution Research. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-25122-x. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 45 
Appendix A: Interview Guide 
 
Strategic Managers’ Value Creation Motives 
The following segment is an interview guide for the semi-structured interviews, used for 
gathering primary data through four strategic managers of Lynk & Co’s Product Strategy Team. 
 
Purpose  
This interview guide will contribute with empiricism representative for the case study of Lynk 
& Co’s strategic processes. The interview is structured with general, contextualizing questions 
about the interviewee and his/her perceptions of value creation. Thereafter, the subscription 
model and questions about sustainable value creation will together constitute the main segments 
of the interview.  
 
1. General information:  
Can you please provide the following information:  
Name:  
Your current position:  
What department/team do you work in:  
 
2. The Subscription Model:  
2.1 Briefly describe the main concept of Lynk & Co’s subscription model? 
2.2 What benefits have you found that the subscription model create? Synergies between 
economic, social, and environmental effects? 
2.3 What are the biggest challenges of Lynk & Co’s subscription model? What rebound effects 
(reduction in expected gains) have occurred? 
 
3. Value Creation motives:  
3.1 How would you define value creation?  
3.2 How do you use value creation in your strategic processes?  
3.3 What values do you recognize as important when setting strategic goals and roadmaps?  
3.4 For who should value created, according to your strategies?  
 
4. Do you want to add anything? 
 46